Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ELENA COJOCARU v. ROMANIA
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (18) Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
They also imply the obligation to put in place an effective independent judicial system by which the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see, among authorities, Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 63, 5 December 2013; and Mehmet Şentürk et Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, § 81, ECHR 2013).The majority refers to Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 219, ECHR 2001-IV, Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002, and Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, § 88, ECHR 2013.
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 32146/05
EUGENIA LAZAR c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
The relevant domestic law concerning forensic expert reports and the competent authorities to issue them, as well as the civil liability of medical staff, is described in Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania (no. 32146/05, §§ 41-54, 16 February 2010).The Court did not offer any reasons for departing from its own case-law as reaffirmed for a factually similar situation in Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania, no. 32146/05, 16 February 2010, quoted in at least a dozen cases.
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94
T.W. v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
The Court recalls that in T.W. v. Malta ([GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999) it had stated that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful.[1] In the discussion of the admissibility of the application the present judgment (§ 81) refers to W. v. Malta ([GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999), in which the Court stated that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful.
- EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 65653/01
NITECKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
In this connection, the Court points out that an issue may arise under Article 2 where it is shown that the authorities of a Contracting State put an individual's life at risk through the denial of health care they have undertaken to make available to the population in general (see Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 219, ECHR 2001-IV, Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002, and Mehmet Şentürk et Bekir Şentürk, cited above, § 88).The majority refers to Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 219, ECHR 2001-IV, Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002, and Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, § 88, ECHR 2013.
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 7823/06
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
The Government supported their arguments that the general tort law proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings would have been effective remedies in the circumstances of the case by referring to the relevant domestic practice submitted before the Court in the cases of Csoma v. Romania, no. 8759/05, §§ 24-25, 15 January 2013; Stihi-Boos v. Romania (dec.), no. 7823/06, §§ 42-43, 11 October 2011; and Istrăţoiu, cited above, §§ 52-53.Where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among healthcare professionals and the protection of the lives of patients, it cannot accept that matters such as an error of judgment on the part of a healthcare professional or negligent coordination among healthcare professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (see Stihi-Boos v. Romania (dec.), no. 7823/06, § 54, 11 October 2011, and Florin Istrăţoiu v. Romania, no. 56556/10, § 74, 27 January 2015).
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 56556/10
ISTRAÈšOIU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
The Court considers that the applicant's allegations fall to be examined exclusively under Article 2 of the Convention (see Istrăţoiu v. Romania (dec.), no. 56556/10, § 56, 27 January 2015), the relevant part of which reads:.Where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among healthcare professionals and the protection of the lives of patients, it cannot accept that matters such as an error of judgment on the part of a healthcare professional or negligent coordination among healthcare professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (see Stihi-Boos v. Romania (dec.), no. 7823/06, § 54, 11 October 2011, and Florin Istrăţoiu v. Romania, no. 56556/10, § 74, 27 January 2015).
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00
ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV). - EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 56080/13
LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
I had the opportunity to express my concerns regarding this departure from the Court's case-law on medical negligence in a joint dissenting opinion prepared together with Judge Tsotsoria, in Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 56080/13, 15 December 2015. - EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged" (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII, with further references; and Bajić, cited above, § 76). - EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99
POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12
These principles apply also to the area of public health (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 64, 16 January 2014). - EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 45076/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03
VALERIY FUKLEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13
LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
The applicant submitted that, according to the more recent understanding of Article 2 of the Convention (she referred to Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008; Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, ECHR 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013; Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, 27 January 2015; and Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016), for the Court to find that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb, it had to be established that in concrete terms the promptness and diligence which could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances of the case had been lacking and, further, that this failing had contributed to putting the victim's life at risk.In Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, § 1, ECHR 2000-V), the Court held that although a State must make "adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals... [the Court] cannot accept that matters such as error of judgment on the part of health professional or negligent co-ordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account..." Nevertheless, in a very recent case, namely Elena Cojocaru v. Romania (no. 74114/12, §§ 108, 111 and 125, 22 March 2016), the Court took a different stance.
Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016.
- EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 21854/18
TUSA c. ROUMANIE
La Cour rappelle que, dans des affaires roumaines similaires, elle a jugé raisonnable le choix des requérants respectifs d'exercer une action de nature civile, en se constituant partie civile dans le cadre de la procédure pénale (Ionita c. Roumanie, no 81270/12, §§ 93-94, 10 janvier 2017 ; Elena Cojocaru c. Roumanie, no 74114/12, § 123, 22 mars 2016 ; et Mihu c. Roumanie, no 36903/13, §§ 58-59, 1er mars 2016). - EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 73974/14
TSALIKIDIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
Τ&omikron; συµπÎρασµα τ&omikron;υ Δικαστηρί&omikron;υ ότι αυτÎς &omikron;ι διαδικασίες απ&omikron;δείχθηκαν αναπ&omikron;τελεσµατικÎς δεν µπ&omikron;ρεί να χρησιµ&omikron;π&omikron;ιηθεί εναντί&omikron;ν τ&omikron;υς (δείτε την υπόθεση Έλενα Κ&omikron;ζ&omikron;κάρ&omikron;υ εναντί&omikron;ν Ρ&omikron;υµανίας, αρ.74114/12, § 123, 22 Μαρτί&omikron;υ 2016).
- EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 41603/13
FABRIS ET PARZIALE c. ITALIE
De plus, le choix de la voie pénale pouvait être jugé préférable pour le requérant puisque l'obligation de recueillir des éléments de preuve revenait aux autorités d'enquête, celles-ci disposant pour ce faire de moyens bien plus efficaces que ceux accessibles à un individu en tant que partie privée (De Donder et De Clippel, précité, § 61, Elena Cojocaru c. Roumanie, no 74114/12, § 122, 22 mars 2016, et Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase, précité, § 176). - EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 999/19
M.A. v. ROMANIA
In this regard, the Court held that an applicant who had pursued criminal proceedings, reasonably expecting that he or she would be able to raise civil claims in the criminal case, was not obliged to embark on a separate civil or disciplinary action (see Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, §§ 80 and 123, 22 March 2016). - EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 80784/13
VLASE c. ROUMANIE
Dans ce contexte, la Cour ne saurait reprocher aux requérantes de ne pas avoir engagé d'action civile ni d'action disciplinaire distinctes (Elena Cojocaru c. Roumanie, no 74114/12, §§ 122-123, 22 mars 2016). - EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 78643/11
STEFAN c. ROUMANIE
Par ailleurs, compte tenu du délai de huit ans et six mois qui s'est écoulé entre l'ouverture de l'enquête et sa clôture définitive et compte tenu du fait que des preuves essentielles pour l'établissement des responsabilités n'ont pas été recueillies et conservées par les autorités (paragraphe 88 ci-dessus), la Cour considère que, dans les circonstances très particulières de l'affaire, il serait excessif de demander aux requérants d'intenter un nouveau recours pour obtenir l'établissement de l'éventuelle responsabilité des organismes publics en cause et de leurs employés dans l'accident (voir, en ce sens, Elena Cojocaru c. Roumanie, no 74114/12, § 122, 22 mars 2016, et Mircea Pop c. Roumanie, no 43885/13, §§ 59-60, 19 juillet 2016). - EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 81270/12
IONITA c. ROUMANIE
They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident (see Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, § 113, 22 March 2016). - EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 42714/13
SCORTE c. ROUMANIE
La cour d'appel, se référant à l'arrêt Elena Cojocaru c. Roumanie (no 74114/12, 22 mars 2016), estima qu'il convenait de rechercher si, en l'espèce, il y avait eu ou non faute médicale de la part du médecin. - EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 25698/10
[FRE]
The relevant provisions of the former Romanian Civil Code concerning civil liability for tort, in particular Articles 998 and 999, are described in the case of Elena Cojocaru v. Romania (no. 74114/12, § 70, 22 March 2016). - EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 7624/18
DEME c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 13706/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 49973/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 60946/14
KUZNETSOVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 16000/16
NEDELCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2025 - 30336/22
LATERZA ET D'ERRICO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 30666/13
LAPTYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 61431/15
SHANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".